Lamotrigine in adolescent mood disorders: a retrospective chart review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Treatment nonresponse in adolescent mood disorders is a major public health problem, as mood disorders in youth are associated with significant mortality by suicide, protracted course of illness, and recurrence into adulthood. Three studies with small sample sizes exist for lamotrigine in youth mood disorders. However, the risk of serious rash has limited its use in youth mood disorders. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study are to evaluate the preliminary effectiveness and safety of lamotrigine in adolescent mood disorders. METHODS: Medical charts were retrospectively reviewed at three clinical sites for 42 adolescents treated with lamotrigine for a mood disorder. The Clinical Global Impression (CGI) Severity and Improvement scores were obtained at baseline and last visit. Treatment-emergent adverse effects were also obtained. RESULTS: Improvement was seen in 22 subjects (52%). The mean daily lamotrigine dose was 114.8mg (SD 75.6), and the average duration of lamotrigine treatment was 29.1+/-31.8 weeks. The mean CGI-S score decreased from 4.9+/-1.0 at baseline to 3.5+/-1.4 at endpoint (z=3.204, p<0.002). Four subjects (10%) developed benign rash. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides preliminary data that lamotrigine may be effective in adolescents with mood disorders. However, this study revealed that lamotrigine might be associated with a significant risk of benign rash.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".